Embracing Digital Technology in Implantology: From Current Practice to Future Potential
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Digitalization has transformed the field of implantology, enabling clinicians to achieve higher precision, efficiency, and predictability across all phases of treatment. This review explores the key digital technologies currently applied in implant dentistry, including cone-beam computed tomography, intraoral scanners, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing systems, static and dynamic guided surgery, and emerging applications of artificial intelligence. These innovations have optimized diagnosis, virtual treatment planning, and surgical execution, enabled minimally invasive procedures and enhanced patient outcomes. Additionally, digital workflows have streamlined prosthetic design and fabrication, reduced chairside time and improved communication between clinicians, laboratories, and patients. However, challenges such as high initial investment, steep learning curves, software interoperability issues, and data security concerns remain barriers to universal adoption. Future research should focus on integrating artificial intelligence with robotics, advancing 3D printing for fully customized implants, and developing cost-effective, open-source solutions to make digital implantology more accessible worldwide. By critically reviewing current evidence, this paper highlights how digitalization continues to shape the future of implant dentistry and emphasizes the need for ongoing training, research, and innovation.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Joda, T., Waltimo, T., Probst-Hensch, N., Pauli-Magnus, C. and Zitzmann, N.U. (2019) Health Data in Dentistry: An Attempt to Master the Digital Challenge. Public Health Genomics, 22, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501643
2. D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):121-133. doi: 10.1111/prd.12175.
3. Thondati Poornachandra Rao, Salina Manandhar, Mounica Pinnamaneni, Sruthi Kalakota, Ridhi Bhola, Sandeep Singh. Digital Implant Planning and Guided Surgery: Current Trends and Clinical Outcomes. Sch J Dent Sci, 2025 May 12(4): 43-48.
4. Bernauer SA, Zitzmann NU, Joda T. The Complete Digital Workflow in Fixed Prosthodontics Updated: A Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 25;11(5):679. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11050679.
5. Vercruyssen M, Cox C, Naert I, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M. Accuracy and patient-centered outcome variables in guided implant surgery: a RCT comparing immediate with delayed loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):427-32. doi: 10.1111/clr.12583.
6. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS One. 2016 Sep 29;11(9):e0163107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163107.
7. Benavides, Erika et al. Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Implant Dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Report. Implant Dentistry 21(2):p 78-86, April 2012. | DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5
8. Is Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Always Necessary for Dental Implant Placement? Deeb, George et al. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Volume 75, Issue 2, 285 – 289.
9. Vinci R, Manacorda M, Abundo R, Lucchina AG, Scarano A, Crocetta C, Muzio LL, Gherlone EF, Mastrangelo F. Accuracy of Edentulous Computer-Aided Implant Surgery as Compared to Virtual Planning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study. J Clin Med. 2020 Mar 12;9(3):774. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030774.
10. Van Dessel J, Nicolielo LF, Huang Y, Slagmolen P, Politis C, Lambrichts I, Jacobs R. Quantification of bone quality using different cone beam computed tomography devices: Accuracy assessment for edentulous human mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9(4):411-424.
11. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Di Carlo S, Pompa G, Barbato E. The accuracy of CBCT in measuring jaws bone density. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012 Oct;16(10):1425-9.
12. Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 11;19(4):2026. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042026.
13. Roig E, Garza LC, Álvarez-Maldonado N, Maia P, Costa S, Roig M, Espona J. In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants. PLoS One. 2020 Feb 27;15(2):e0228266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228266.
14. Afrashtehfar KI, Alnakeb NA, Assery MKM. Accuracy of intraoral scanners versus traditional impressions: a rapid umbrella review. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022;22(3):101719. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719.
15. Ma, B., Yue, X., Sun, Y. et al. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health 21, 636 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0.
16. Ma, B., Yue, X., Sun, Y. et al. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health 21, 636 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0.
17. Berta GM, Luigi C, Miguel PD, Carlos BJ. Prospective Clinical Study on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Patients With Distal Free-End Implants. Conventional Versus CAD-CAM Surgical Guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Mar;36(3):314-324. doi: 10.1111/clr.14384.
18. Robaian A, Hamed MM, Ahmed Y, Hassanein FEA. Comparative Evaluation of Customized CAD/CAM vs. Stock Titanium Abutments for Immediate Implant Placement in Class II Extraction Sockets: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Dent J (Basel). 2025 Aug 15;13(8):371. doi: 10.3390/dj13080371.
19. Ferrari M, Tricarico MG, Cagidiaco MC, Vichi A, Gherlone EF, Zarone F, Sorrentino R. 3-Year Randomized Controlled Prospective Clinical Trial on Different CAD-CAM Implant Abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Dec;18(6):1134-1141. doi: 10.1111/cid.12418.
20. Elsayed A, Farrag G, Chaar MS, Abdelnabi N, Kern M. Influence of Different CAD/CAM Crown Materials on the Fracture of Custom-Made Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments After Artificial Aging. Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan/Feb;32(1):91-96. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6137.
21. Younis H, Lv C, Xu B, Zhou H, Du L, Liao L, Zhao N, Long W, Elayah SA, Chang X, He L. Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guides and the freehand approach in implant placement: a prospective clinical study. Head Face Med. 2024 May 14;20(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13005-024-00433-1.
22. Pellegrino G, Ferri A, Del Fabbro M, Prati C, Gandolfi MG, Marchetti C. Dynamic Navigation in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021 Sep-Oct;36(5):e121-e140. doi: 10.11607/jomi.8770.
23. Wu XY, Huang ZL, Liu BL, Lv XL, Shi JY, Lai HC. Accuracy of Implant Placement with Robotic Surgery, Dynamic Navigation, Fully Static Guide, and Freehand Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2025 Aug 14;0(0):1-28. doi: 10.11607/jomi.11531.
24. Alqutaibi AY, Algabri RS, Alamri AS, Alhazmi LS, Almadani SM, Alturkistani AM, Almutairi AG. Advancements of artificial intelligence algorithms in predicting dental implant prognosis from radiographic images: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Nov 27:S0022-3913(24)00727-3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.036.
25. Rajan RSS, Kumar HSK, Sekhar A, Nadakkavukaran D, Feroz SMA, Gangadharappa P. Evaluating the Role of AI in Predicting the Success of Dental Implants Based on Preoperative CBCT Images: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Feb;16(Suppl 1):S886-S888. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1117_23.
26. Alqutaibi AY, Algabri RS, Alamri AS, Alhazmi LS, Almadani SM, Alturkistani AM, Almutairi AG. Advancements of artificial intelligence algorithms in predicting dental implant prognosis from radiographic images: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Nov 27:S0022-3913(24)00727-3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.036.
27. Flügge, T., Kramer, J., Nelson, K. et al. Digital implantology—a review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery. Part II: Prosthetic set-up and virtual implant planning. BMC Oral Health 22, 23 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02057-w
28. Kafedzhieva, A.; Vlahova, A.; Chuchulska, B. Digital Technologies in Implantology: A Narrative Review. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 927. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090927.
29. Wachol, K.; Morawiec, T.; Nowak-Wachol, A.; Kubaszek, B.; Kasprzyk-Kucewicz, T.; Baldi, D.; Machorowska-Pieniążek, A.; Skucha-Nowak, M.; Cholewka, A. Comparative Analysis of Implant Prosthesis Treatment Planning and Execution Following Bone Repair Procedures Using Dynamic Surgical Navigation in Augmented Areas. Coatings 2022, 12, 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12081099.
30. Saini RS, Bavabeedu SS, Quadri SA, et al. Impact of 3D imaging techniques and virtual patients on the accuracy of planning and surgical placement of dental implants: A systematic review. DIGITAL HEALTH. 2024;10. doi:10.1177/20552076241253550.
31. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:25-42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2.
32. Bessadet M, Drancourt N, El Osta N. Time efficiency and cost analysis between digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Jan;133(1):71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.003.
33. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1.
34. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. Revilla-León, Marta et al. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Volume 125, Issue 3, 470 - 478
35. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Sep 19;17(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0.
36. Wang J, Wang B, Liu YY, Luo YL, Wu YY, Xiang L, Yang XM, Qu YL, Tian TR, Man Y. Recent Advances in Digital Technology in Implant Dentistry. J Dent Res. 2024 Jul;103(8):787-799. doi: 10.1177/00220345241253794.
37. Afrashtehfar KI, Alnakeb NA, Assery MKM. ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS VERSUS TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A RAPID UMBRELLA REVIEW. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022 Sep;22(3):101719. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719.
38. Schierz O, Hirsch C, Krey KF, Ganss C, Kämmerer PW, Schlenz MA. DIGITAL DENTISTRY AND ITS IMPACT ON ORAL HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2024 Jan;24(1S):101946. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101946.
39. Mangano F. Digital dentistry. J Dent. 2021 Jun;109:103693. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103693.
40. Saeed A, Alkhurays M, AlMutlaqah M, AlAzbah M, Alajlan SA. Future of Using Robotic and Artificial Intelligence in Implant Dentistry. Cureus. 2023 Aug 9;15(8):e43209. doi: 10.7759/cureus.43209.
41. Lin PY, Chen TC, Lin CJ, Huang CC, Tsai YH, Tsai YL, Wang CY. The use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) in dental surgery education and practice: A narrative review. J Dent Sci. 2024 Dec;19(Suppl 2):S91-S101. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.10.011.
42. Wang, X., Guan, M., Liu, L. et al. The impact of mixed reality training method on novice trainees of dental implants: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 25, 1379 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06366-8.
43. Bochet Q, Raoul G, Lauwers L, Nicot R. Augmented reality in implantology: Virtual surgical checklist and augmented implant placement. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Oct;125(12 Suppl 2):101813. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2024.
44. Reen GS, Mohandas M, Venkatesan S. Decentralized patient centric e-health record management system using blockchain and IPFS. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on Information and Communication Technology (CICT). IEEE; 2019. p. 1–7. doi:10.1109/CICT48419.2019.9066212.
45. Vickram AS, Infant SS, Manikandan S, Sowndharya BB, Gulothungan G, Chopra H. 3D bio-printed scaffolds and smart implants: evaluating functional performance in animal surgery models. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 May 12;87(6):3618-3634. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003333.
46. Mokhamed, T.; Talib, M.A.; Moufti, M.A.; Abbas, S.; Khan, F. The Potential of Blockchain Technology in Dental Healthcare: A Literature Review. Sensors 2023, 23, 3277. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063277
47. Mardini DC, Sharma M, Madathil S. Blockchain for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2025 Oct;10(4):469-471. doi: 10.1177/23800844241303483.